From: | ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: V3 protocol is slower than V2 |
Date: | 2007-10-16 05:11:20 |
Message-ID: | 20071016135536.9B0F.ITAGAKI.TAKAHIRO@oss.ntt.co.jp |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ITAGAKI Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)oss(dot)ntt(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> > [V2] PQsendQuery (V2; original)
> > [V3] PQsendQueryParams (V3)
> > [V3P] PQsendQueryPrepared (V3 with prepared statements)
>
> > V3 was 12% slower than V2, and V3P was 40% faster than V2.
>
> Those aren't really comparable, because the functionality is different.
> Did you check plain PQSendQuery on both V2 and V3?
Oops, I called 'simple query' V2. All of my tests used V3 protocol.
The results need to be read as:
PQsendQuery = (simple query)
vs.
PQsendQueryParams = (parse + bind + describe + execute + sync)
If the latter is slower than the former, the another version of
PQsendQueryParams, that fills parameters into SQL and uses simple-query,
might be considerable for performance. For example in Java, using
PreparedStatement class with V2 protocol.
Regards,
---
ITAGAKI Takahiro
NTT Open Source Software Center
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-10-16 05:15:20 | Re: plpgsql: Plan type mismatch error |
Previous Message | Pavel Stehule | 2007-10-16 05:08:20 | Re: FOUND with EXECUTE |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jacky Leng | 2007-10-16 10:30:10 | Why copy_relation_data only use wal when WAL archiving is enabled |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2007-10-16 04:55:35 | Re: Avoid needless copy in nodeMaterial |